U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–408PDF 2014

REDUCING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD 

FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2014 

Serial No. 113–79 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 12, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Dan Maffei, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 15 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, Chairman, Task Force on Administrative Burden, 

National Science Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Dr. Susan Wyatt Sedwick, Chair, Federal Demonstration Partnership; President, FDP Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser, Vice President for Research, Syracuse University, Office of Research 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 

The Honorable Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 66 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, Chairman, Task Force on Administrative Burden, 

National Science Board ........................................................................................ 84 
Page

IV 

Dr. Susan Wyatt Sedwick, Chair, Federal Demonstration Partnership; President, FDP Foundation ......................................................................................... 97 

Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser, Vice President for Research, Syracuse University, Office of Research ..................................................................................................... 110 

The Honorable Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General ......................................................................... 119 
(1) 

REDUCING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD 

FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEES ON OVERSIGHT & 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Broun 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairman BROUN. Good morning, everyone. This is the joint 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and the Subcommittee 

on Research and Technology, and we will call this meeting to order. 

Welcome to today’s joint hearing titled ‘‘Reducing the Administrative Workload for Federally Funded Research.’’ In front of you 

are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and 

Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

Before we get started, since this is a joint hearing involving two 

Subcommittees, I want to explain how we will operate procedurally 

so that all Members understand how the question-and-answer period will be handled. We will recognize those Members present at 

the gavel in order of seniority on the full Committee and those 

coming in after the gavel will be recognized in order of their arrival. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Let me begin by extending a warm welcome to our witnesses, 

and thank you all for appearing today bright and early. In fact, Dr. 

Lee-Glauser, I understand you drove all the way from Syracuse to 

come today, and we really appreciate your taking all that effort to 

do so. Welcome to all of you. 

Earlier this year, the National Science Board issued a report that 

examines concerns raised by educational institutions on the paperwork required of each of them when applying for Federal funds for 

research. The report references work done by an association, also 

represented here today, which identified through a couple of surveys that on average, researchers spend 42 percent of their application time on meeting administrative requirements. That is a massive drain on researchers’ time and resources, and means they are 

spending that much less time on conducting active research, which 

is their primary objective. 

Forty-two percent sounds to me to be an extraordinarily high 

number. I have often spoken against the bureaucracies associated 

with a large federal government, and it appears that our educational institutions may indeed be victims of bureaucratic red 

tape. As such, it seems fair to explore solutions such as harmonizing and streamlining federal regulations and reporting requirements. It also makes sense to eliminate ineffective federal regulations while also requiring universities to increase their efficiency 

and effectiveness. 

But, as with most issues that appear before this Committee, 

there are many sides to consider, and another one of our witnesses 

today, the Inspector General for the National Science Foundation, 

will provide us with her perspective as an auditor, which is quite 

different. While everyone generally agrees that efforts to reduce 

these administrative burdens should not be at the expense of transparency and accountability, it is the auditor who actually reviews 

grants for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. 

Consequently, I am interested in learning about not only how the 

federal government can and needs to do a better job in cutting 

down red tape to bring that 42 percent number down, but also 

about the tools, or in this case, the paperwork the NSF Inspector 

General needs to access in order to do her job effectively. 

As a physician and a man of science, I can appreciate the value 

to our nation and to our students of research universities’ work to 
8 

sustain the science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

workforce. The United States relies greatly on the strength and 

success of our universities in order to remain a world leader in 

science and technology. But it shouldn’t be a surprise to most of 

you that when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, I have some 

well-known opinions on how much, or how little, the federal government should spend and where such funds should go. 

Don’t get me wrong. Making sure our science agencies are funded 

at the appropriate authorization levels is important, but it is that 

definition of ‘‘appropriate’’ that is critical. If we really want to reduce the administrative burden on institutions, then all we have to 

do is reduce the size of the administration. No money, no problem. 

But this is a discussion for another day, of course. 

I look forward to today’s hearing, which I anticipate will inform 

us on how to reduce the administrative workload for federally funded research without compromising the federal responsibility to ensure tax money is spent in the manner intended. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT CHAIRMAN PAUL BROUN

Good morning. Let me begin by extending a warm welcome to our witnesses, and 

thank you all for appearing today bright and early. 

Earlier this year, the National Science Board issued a report that examines concerns raised by educational institutions on the paperwork required of them when 

applying for federal funds for research. The report references work done by an association, also represented here today, which identified through a couple of surveys 

that on average, researchers spend 42 percent of their application time on meeting 

administrative requirements. That is a massive drain on researchers’ time and resources, and means they are spending that much less time on conducting active research, which is their primary objective. 

Forty-two percent sounds to me to be an extraordinarily high number. I have 

often spoken against the bureaucracies associated with a large federal government, 

and it appears that our educational institutions may indeed be victims of bureaucratic red tape. As such, it seems fair to explore solutions such as harmonizing and 

streamlining federal regulations and reporting requirements. It also makes sense to 

eliminate ineffective federal regulations while also requiring universities to increase 

their efficiency and effectiveness. 

But, as with most issues that appear before this Committee, there are many sides 

to consider, and another one of our witnesses today, the Inspector General for the 

National Science Foundation, will provide us with her perspective as an auditor, 

which is quite different. While everyone generally agrees that efforts to reduce these 

administrative burdens should not be at the expense of transparency and accountability, it is the auditor who actually reviews grants for waste, fraud, abuse and 

mismanagement. Consequently, I am interested in learning about not only how the 

federal government can—and needs—to do a better job in cutting down red tape to 

bring that 42 percent number down, but also about the tools, or in this case, the 

paperwork the NSF Inspector General needs to access in order to do her job effectively. 

As a physician and man of science, I can appreciate the value to our nation and 

to our students of research universities’ work to sustain the science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce. The United States relies greatly on the 

strength and success of our universities in order to remain a world leader in science 

and technology. But it shouldn’t be a surprise to most of you that when it comes 

to spending taxpayer dollars, I have some well-known opinions on how much—or 

how little—the federal government should spend, and where such funds should go. 

Don’t get me wrong, making sure our science agencies are funded at the appropriate 

authorization levels is important, but it is that definition of appropriate that is critical. If we really want to reduce the administrative burden on institutions, then all 

we have to do is reduce the size of the administration—no money, no problem. But 

that is a discussion for another day. I look forward to today’s hearing, which I anticipate will inform us on how to reduce the administrative workload for federally 
9 

funded research without compromising the federal responsibility to ensure taxpayer 

money is spent in the manner intended. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, and now I recognize my friend and 

Ranking Member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Maffei, for 

an opening statement. Mr. Maffei, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MAFFEI. I thank my friend and Chairman for not only for 

recognizing me but for also holding this hearing. I think this is an 

extremely important hearing. I am actually particularly pleased 

that one of my constituents, Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser, is here, and as 

you mentioned, had to make a great personal sacrifice to come 

down. Central New York isn’t as far as Georgia but it is still quite 

a drive. Fortunately, we are not in the winter weather where it 

would have been almost impossible. But I know that the Committee will value her advice and insights about all of us thinking 

about these issues. 

Regulations can certainly add to the burdens and hurdles of researchers, but we have to weigh the benefits of those regulations 

against the cost. I want to thank Dr. Bienenstock and Dr. Sedwick 

for bringing their thoughtful reports to our attention. Those studies 

provide plenty of examples of places where we can pare back on the 

bureaucratic burdens to free up our professors to do the work we 

really want them to do. 

I am also very pleased to have Mrs. Lerner here to tell us what 

information really is necessary to collect to avoid fraud and wasteful grants. That is so important. 

With scientists spending 40 percent of their time perhaps on this 

paperwork, and I have even seen larger amounts of time, it is extremely important to make sure that we reduce anything unnecessary to allow them to spend more of their time doing science, but 

I would be, I think, remiss if I didn’t bring up that so much time 

and energy of a researcher simply comes from applying for grants, 

the same grants, the same research project over and over and over 

again, and with 80 percent of applications for grants going unfunded, even very, very promising proposals are not funded simply 

because there are insufficient funds. The researchers spend an 

enormous amount of time chasing money from an increasingly 

smaller pot. 

Unfortunately, the FIRST Act that we marked up a few weeks 

ago in the full Committee failed to provide an authorization that 

even matches the already constrained level offered by the appropriators. Now, I am not trying to be partisan on this. I actually believe the President also has not done enough in terms of funding 

science and in terms of real buying power, the cost of science. We 

have seen that the actual funds have gone down for research from 

the federal government, and by failing to provide more robust funding, I fear that we consign many researchers to hours and hours 

of unfunded effort that will four out of five times only result only 

in failure. That also constitutes a huge hidden cost, and we need 

science—we need scientists in this country to do the science, not 

paperwork burdens, not applying again and again and again for the 

same grant because there is so little funding. 

Now, I realize there are a lot of burdens obviously on federal 

funds, but if we don’t do it, Mr. Chairman, I fear that first of all, 
10 

competitors such as China and others will overtake us very quickly 

in terms of research on science but also we are putting our society 

at a far higher cost. This is a capital investment when we invest 

in scientific research. It is not the same thing as throwing money 

out the window. In fact, societies for thousands and thousands of 

years, even if they had zero social programs, still invested in scientific research, and those that didn’t did it at their peril. 

So I am very, very grateful to you for having this hearing. I think 

it is very important to reduce the paperwork burden but I do want 

to make sure that we put it in the proper context, that it isn’t the 

only thing that is going to solve the problem of scientists spending 

so much time doing things other than science, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maffei follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN MAFFEI

Mr. Chairman, I am happy we are holding a hearing on this important subject. 

While I am grateful to all the witnesses who are here today, I am particularly 

pleased that the Vice President for Research at Syracuse University, Dr. Gina LeeGlauser, is able to join us. I know her well and value her advice and insight to inform my thinking about policy related to our Universities. 

There are many who think that academics have it easy, but I can tell you that 

the academics I have known—many of them at Syracuse University—are among the 

hardest working people you will ever meet. Many professors have to juggle their 

teaching, their research and their University and community service. So when I 

hear from many researchers about the additional burdens of the ‘‘time and effort’’ 

reporting system, I am not the least bit surprised. 

My hat is off to all the teachers and researchers who educate and innovate. It 

is hard work, and sometimes it does not receive the recognition it deserves, but it 

is essential to building the kind of country and world we want our children to inherit. 

Regulations can certainly add to the burdens and hurdles of our researchers, but 

we have to weigh the benefits of those regulations against the costs. I want to thank 

Dr. Beinenstock and Dr. Sedwick for bringing their very thoughtful reports to our 

attention. Those studies provide plenty of examples of places where we can pare 

back on bureaucratic burdens to free up our professors to do the work we really 

want them doing. 

In this, I think there is no disagreement across the aisle. We both want to reduce 

unnecessary regulations. That said, I find this hearing’s timing to be unfortunate. 

We are receiving testimony on ways to reduce the burden on researchers just two 

weeks after the Committee finished marking up the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) authorization in the FIRST Act. That would have been a perfect opportunity 

to craft legislation that would have given statutory guidance to NSF about tackling 

reductions in regulatory burdens. Instead of providing meaningful guidance, the 

FIRST Act just tells Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to start thinking about doing something. 

I also have to say that the FIRST Act itself creates new regulatory burdens, either 

directly or indirectly, on researchers. It also increases administrative overhead at 

NSF, which will drain funds away from research to support the new array of compliance requirements invented by the Majority. 

Lastly, there is another area of administrative burden that the Committee contributes to. Reading through the testimony, it is clear that one of the largest time 

and energy sinks on researcher’s time comes in the form of simply applying for 

grants. With 80 percent of the applications going unfunded, even very, very promising proposals are not funded simply because there are insufficient funds. Researchers spend an enormous amount of time chasing money from an increasingly 

smaller pot. The FIRST Act failed to provide an authorization that even matches 

the already-constrained level offered by the appropriators. By failing to provide 

more robust funding, the Majority consigns many researchers to hours of unfunded 

effort that will, four out of fivetimes result only in failure. That constitutes its own 

hidden cost on researchers. 
11 

So, I approach this hearing with a sense of gratitude that we can get so much 

good information on the record, but also aware of the irony in the topic and timing 

of this hearing. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Maffei. Surely you are not 

suggesting we get rid of social programs as a Democrat. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Surely I am not. I am just drawing a comparison, 

though I do think we could do those more efficiently as well. 

Chairman BROUN. Amen, brother. 

I will now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, the gentleman from Indiana, a medical colleague, Dr. Bucshon, for his opening statement. Dr. Bucshon, you 

are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman Broun, and thank you to 

the witnesses for appearing here today. 

Our hearing today on reducing the administrative workload for 

federally funded research, brings forward an important subject for 

all of us: reducing burdensome red tape caused by an overly entangled bureaucratic web on the research community. 

Last April, I did a university tour in my State of Indiana, which 

is home to many premier research universities. At every school I 

visited, the administrative burden on researchers was of utmost 

concern. 

In 2012, the National Research Council produced a report, in response to a bipartisan bicameral request, highlighting ten recommendations for the future of U.S. research universities. One of 

the recommendations from that report was to reduce or eliminate 

regulations that increase administrative costs, impede research 

productivity, and deflect creative energy without substantially improving the research environment. 

In early 2013, I joined the former Chair of the Research Subcommittee, my colleague Mo Brooks from Alabama, on a request to 

the GAO to identify Federal requirements that create burden for 

research universities. To avoid duplication, GAO waited to move 

forward on our request due to ongoing work of the Office of Management and Budget, the National Science Board and the Federal 

Demonstration Partnership. I believe now that these projects have 

wrapped up we can expect GAO to begin to identify and address 

concerns regarding both the burden and potential value of regulatory requirements. 

Additionally, a bill I authored, H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act, was reported favorably from the full Committee on May 28th and included a provision 

requiring the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a working group responsible for reviewing federal 

regulations surrounding research and research universities and 

making recommendations on ways to minimize the regulatory burden on universities. 

I want to be sure we address the concern that 42 percent of a 

researcher’s time, according to the FDP, is spent on administrative 

tasks which may take away from the conduct of science. But we 

must also ensure that we maintain processes to safeguard accountability, transparency and responsibility in handling taxpayer resources. 
12 

I am confident that we are taking thoughtful and beneficial steps 

toward addressing the issue of the regulatory burden. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on their experiences, concerns and suggestions to alleviate this problem while preserving accountability. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

Thank you Chairman Broun. Our hearing today on Reducing the Administrative 

Workload for Federally Funded Research brings forward an important subject for 

all of us; reducing burdensome red tape caused by an overly entangled bureaucratic 

web on the research community. Last April, I did a university tour in my state of 

Indiana, which is home to many premier research universities. At every school I visited, the administrative burden on researchers was of the utmost concern. 

In 2012, the National Research Council produced a report, in response to a bipartisan bicameral request, highlighting ten recommendations for the future of U.S. research universities. One of the recommendations from that report was to ‘‘reduce or 

eliminate regulations that increase administrative costs, impede research productivity, and deflect creative energy without substantially improving the research environment.’’ Early in 2013, I joined the former Chair of the Research Subcommittee, 

my colleague Mo Brooks from Alabama, on a request to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to identify federal requirements that create burden for research 

universities. 

To avoid duplication, GAO waited to move forward on our request due to ongoing 

work of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Science Board 

(NSB) and the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP). I believe now that these 

projects have wrapped up we can expect GAO to begin to identify and address concerns regarding both the burden and potential value of regulatory requirements. Additionally, a bill I authored, H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, 

Science and Technology Act, was reported favorably from the Full Committee on 

May 28 and included a provision requiring the Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish a working group responsible for reviewing 

federal regulations surrounding research and research universities and making recommendations on ways to minimize the regulatory burden on universities. 

I want to be sure we address the concern that 42 percent of a researcher’s time 

(according to the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)) is spent on administrative tasks which may take away from the conduct of science. But we must also ensure that we maintain processes to safeguard accountability, transparency and responsibility in handling taxpayer resources.I am confident that we are taking 

thoughtful and beneficial steps toward addressing the issue of regulatory burden. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on their experiences, concerns 

and suggestions to alleviate this problem while preserving accountability. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. I now recognize the 

Ranking Member of the Research and Technology Committee, my 

friend, Mr. Lipinski. You are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Broun, and thank you, 

Chairman Broun and Chairman Bucshon, for holding this hearing 

on reducing the administrative workload for researchers. My prior 

life as a university professor, researcher, I certainly do have an appreciation for this. 

There have been numerous reports, including some we will hear 

about this morning, that have found that researchers face significant administrative burdens, as all of my colleagues have talked 

about. That is concerning because time spent on administrative 

tasks from applying for grants, to submitting progress reports, to 

complying with rules for human participant requirements is time 

not spent on conducting research. This could mean a delay in re-
13 

search progress and lengthening the time for the next scientific 

breakthrough. 

I want to stress that many administrative requirements are very 

important. We must have a system that ensures that federal resources are not being wasted and that human participants are 

being protected. That being said, we need to find the right balance 

that meets those goals and allows researchers to focus on what 

they do best: advancing science. I am concerned that we might not 

be striking the appropriate balance. If researchers are spending 

over 40 percent of their time on administrative tasks and not research, that is wasteful. 

At a hearing in 2012, the Research Subcommittee heard testimony from university witnesses expressing concern about the growing toll of administrative burdens. After that hearing, I sent a letter to OMB as the agency sought to reform federal grants policies. 

The letter urged OMB to make changes to reduce administrative 

burdens in some of the same areas addressed in the Board’s report. 

While the OMB has not adopted these recommendations in full, I 

do feel that substantive progress has been made and I hope that 

we can continue to address these matters moving forward. I look 

forward to working with research groups, the university community, science agencies, and other interested parties to identify and 

act on additional opportunities for reform. 

Although this Committee cannot solve all the problems associated with administrative burdens, we do have an important role to 

play in working on and highlighting these issues. Both the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014 and the FIRST Act, as 

mentioned by Chairman Bucshon, include language that would establish a working group under the National Science and Technology Council to make recommendations on how to harmonize, 

streamline, and eliminate duplicative federal regulations and reporting requirements. I am interested to hear the witnesses’ 

thoughts on these legislative proposals. 

I am also interested in hearing from the witnesses about how 

other legislation such as the DATA Act, which has just been enacted, and the GRANT Act, which has been proposed, would affect 

administrative burdens for researchers. 

Finally, I am interested in hearing about the progress that is already being made to streamline and harmonize administrative 

tasks. For example, I know that federal agencies have been working on harmonizing the grant proposal process and progress reporting requirements. Additionally, I understand that agencies have 

started exploring ways for researchers to submit only the information needed for the initial peer review phase and then requiring administrative information from the researchers only if the proposal 

is likely to be awarded. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about these efforts and other proposals that could help reduce the administrative burden for researchers. 

In closing, federal agency and institutional requirements have 

been put in place to protect human participants and animal subjects in research, ensure integrity in the research enterprise, and 

eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. There is no question that we 

need to have these requirements in place but there is room to make 

changes to the implementation of these requirements. We must 
14 

strike the right balance that both protects our research enterprise 

and enables scientists to spend more time on their important research. 

I look forward to the witness testimony today and I thank you 

for being here, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN LIPINSKI

Thank you Chairman Broun and Chairman Bucshon for holding this hearing on 

reducing the administrative workload for researchers. 

There have been numerous reports, including some we will hear about this morning, that have found that researchers face significant administrative burdens. That 

is concerning because time spent on administrative tasks—from applying for grants, 

to submitting progress reports, to complying with rules for human participant requirements—is time not spent on conducting research. This could mean a delay in 

research progress and lengthening the time for the next scientific breakthrough. 

I want to stress that many administrative requirements are very important. We 

must have a system that ensures that human participants are being protected and 

that federal resources are being used wisely. That being said, we need to find the 

right balance that meets those goals and allows researchers to focus on what they 

do best—advancing science. I am concerned that we might not be striking the appropriate balance. If researchers are spending over 40 percent of their time on administrative tasks and not research, that is not productive. 

At a hearing in 2012, the Research subcommittee heard testimony from university 

witnesses expressing concern about the growing toll of administrative burdens. As 

a result, in May of last year I made several recommendations along the lines of the 

issues raised in the Board’s report in a letter to OMB as the agency sought to reform federal grants policies. While the OMB has not adopted these recommendations in full, I do feel that substantive progress has been made and I hope that we 

can continue to address these matters moving forward. I look forward to working 

with research groups, the university community, science agencies, and other interested parties to identify and act on additional opportunities for reform. 

Although this Committee cannot solve all the problems associated with administrative burdens, we do have an important role to play in working on and highlighting these issues. Both the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014 and 

the FIRST Act include language that would establish a working group under the 

National Science and Technology Council to make recommendations on how to harmonize, streamline, and eliminate duplicative federal regulations and reporting requirements. I am interested to hear from the witnesses their thoughts on these legislative proposal. 

I am also interested in hearing from the witnesses about how other legislation 

such as the DATA Act, which has just been enacted, and the GRANT Act, which 

has been proposed, would affect administrative burdens for researchers. 

Finally, I am interested in hearing about the progress that is already being made 

to streamline and harmonize administrative tasks. For example, I know that federal 

agencies have been working on harmonizing the grant proposal process and progress 

reporting requirements. Additionally, I understand that agencies have started exploring ways for researchers to submit only the information needed for the initial 

peer review phase and then requiring administrative information from the researchers only if the proposal is likely to be awarded. I look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses about these efforts and other proposals that could help reduce the administrative burden for researchers. In closing, federal agency and institutional requirements have been put in place to protect human participants and animal subjects 

in research, ensure integrity in the research enterprise, and eliminate waste, fraud, 

and abuse. There is no question that we need to have these requirements in place. 

But there is room to make changes to the implementation of these requirements. 

We must strike the right balance that both protects our research enterprise and enables scientists to spend more time on their important research. 

I look forward to all of the witness testimony and the Q&A, and I thank you all 

for being here today. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BROUN. Dr. Lipinski, I appreciate your opening statement. 
15 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in thanking all the witnesses for 

being here. 

This morning we are discussing how to reduce the administrative workload for researchers. As I am sure we will hear this morning, numerous reviews by esteemed 

organizations have found that researchers face significant administrative burdens at 

perhaps too high a cost to benefit ratio. That is not good. 

It is clear that we must ensure full accountability for all federal funding. However, it is also clear that in order for our country to remain a leader in research, 

we need our researchers conducting research—not spending excessive amounts of 

time on paperwork. 

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses about ideas for streamlining and 

harmonizing some of these reporting requirements to ensure that researchers are 

spending most of their time conducting research. 

I do find it interesting though that we are holding this hearing on administrative 

burdens so soon after marking up the FIRST Act, which the National Science Board 

and others have pointed out would lead to significant increases in regulations and 

red tape. 

Instead of having a genuine conversation about how we can reduce the administrative burdens on our researchers, I am concerned that the Majority wants to have 

it both ways. They want to pass a bill that would add significant burdens one week 

and then lament all of the increasing burdens on researchers the next week. That 

doesn’t make any sense. 

I hope that we can move to an honest conversation about how this Committee can 

help ensure that the research community has all the tools they need to be successful. That includes fewer administrative burdens, but also includes increased and 

predictable research funding. Otherwise our researchers will continue to spend more 

and more time applying for grants and checking boxes rather than conducting research. 

If we were serious about promoting U.S. science and competitiveness, this Committee would be investing in research and reducing unnecessary red tape—not providing flat funding, rewriting merit-review, and adding more bureaucratic burdens 

as the FIRST Act does. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BROUN. At this time I would like to introduce our 

panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, 

Chairman of the Task Force on Administrative Burden at the National Science Board. Dr. Bienenstock is also a Professor Emeritus 

of Photon Science, Special Assistant to the President for Federal 

Research Policy, and Director of the Wallenberg Research Link at 

Stanford University. 

Our second witness is Dr. Susan Wyatt Sedwick, Chair of the 

Federal Demonstration Partnership and President of the FDP 

Foundation. Dr. Sedwick is also an Associate Vice President for Research and Director of the Office of Sponsored Projects at the University of Texas at Austin. At least you didn’t have to drive from 

Austin. That is good. 

Our third witness is Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser, the Vice President of 

Research at Syracuse University’s Office of Research, and again, 

thank you so much for taking a tremendous effort to drive all the 

way down here from Syracuse. We really appreciate it. 

Our final witness is the Hon. Allison Lerner, Inspector General 

at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General. 
16 

Let me just say that I especially appreciate your presence here 

today, Ms. Lerner. I am aware that your father is not well, and I 

want you to know that I will keep him and you and your family 

in my prayers. So thank you. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee have 

five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be 

included in the record of the hearing. 

It is the practice of this Subcommittee on Oversight to receive 

testimony under oath. If you now would all please stand and raise 

your right hand? I hope no one objects to taking an oath. Do you 

solemnly swear to affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? You may be seated. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses participating have taken the oath. 

I now recognize Dr. Bienenstock for five minutes. Sir, you are 

recognized. Let me remind all the witnesses that we are going to 

have votes this morning, and so if you could, please try to limit 

your comments to five minutes. Your written testimony will be 

placed in the record. If you all could try to watch the clock and 

make sure that if you can as much as possible just adhere to the 

five minutes, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. Bienenstock. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR BIENENSTOCK, CHAIRMAN, 

TASK FORCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. Chairmen Broun and Bucshon, Ranking Members Maffei and Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on streamlining 

the red tape that is slowing the pace of scientific research. 

While this is a topic with which I have been engaged for many 

years as a former Associate Director for Science at OSTP and Vice 

Provost for Research at Stanford, I am here today representing the 

National Science Board, which is an independent adviser to Congress and the President. The Board’s Task Force on Administrative 

Burdens recently completed a report on reducing investigators’ administrative workload for federally funded research. The Board created this task force because our scientists are dealing with heavy 

administrative workloads that interfere with the effectiveness of 

our nation’s research enterprise as indicated by successive federal 

demonstration partnership surveys. This Committee heard this 

concern voiced before at its hearing two years ago on the National 

Academies’ report on research universities and the future of America. 

I would like to thank this Committee for your sustained attention to this issue including through Section 302 of the FIRST Act 

that would require the creation of a high-level interagency intersector committee to harmonize regulations across agencies. This is 

recommended in our report as well. 

The Board’s report is available on our website, and I have a 

number of copies available here today, so I will highlight only a few 

key points in my oral remarks. 

First, I want to emphasize that the NSB is absolutely committed 

to the principle that research must be conducted with integrity, ad-
17 

herence to standards, safety and full accountability. Administrative 

compliance requirements are needed to ensure this. However, it is 

equally important that we achieve these goals without creating unnecessary burdens. 

Second, while regulatory requirements add to the workload of 

many stakeholders including NSF program officers and university 

administrators, our task force focused on research scientists and 

how we may be hindering their productivity. To prepare our report, 

the NSB issued an open request for information to the U.S. research community and held three roundtables across the country. 

Over 3,000 researchers and research administrators provided us 

with feedback. We also consulted with the major organizations 

studying research administration and burden issues including accrediting organizations for human and animal subject protections. 

The Board believes that by using stakeholder input to help identify 

and prioritize concerns, agencies like the National Science Foundation can provide an even better return on scarce taxpayer dollars. 

Let me now present our overarching findings and a few key recommended actions. First, the Board believes that we need to focus 

on the science. Proposals to the NSF include much information that 

is not critical to judging the intellectual merit and potential broader impacts of a proposal. Much researcher and reviewer time could 

be saved if materials like detailed budgets or postdoctoral mentoring plans were not submitted until after a project has been 

through merit review and deemed worthy of support. 

Second, we need a continued government-wide push to streamline regulations. For instance, the Federal Demonstration Partnership’s payroll certification pilot may help us to reduce the burden 

associated with effort reporting without reducing accountability. 

You may hear more on this from both the FDP and Allison Lerner 

as she and her colleagues are reviewing this pilot. The Board and 

many universities are looking forward to their report and hope to 

learn from it. 

Third, we need to continue to push for harmonization and 

streamlining across the federal government. The OMB Uniform 

Guidance and the new research performance progress reports are 

steps in the right direction but more needs to be done. For example, the research community perceives that federal audit practices 

are not applied in a uniform and consistent way. The Board will 

try to facilitate discussions between the audit and university communities to address this. There will be ongoing challenges of this 

sort. This is why we recommend the establishment of a permanent 

high-level intersector interagency committee. 

Finally, the report recommends ways in which our universities 

might increase their efficiency and effectiveness as stewards of research and taxpayer dollars. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bienenstock follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Bienenstock. 

Our next witness is Dr. Sedwick. You are recognized for five minutes, Dr. Sedwick. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SUSAN WYATT SEDWICK, 

CHAIR, FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP; 

PRESIDENT, FDP FOUNDATION 

Dr. SEDWICK. Thank you. Chairman Broun, Chairman Bucshon, 

Ranking Members Lipinski and Maffei, and honorable Members of 

the Oversight and Science and Technology Subcommittees, my 

name is Susan Wyatt Sedwick. I am Chair of Phase V of the Federal Demonstration Partnership and also serve as President of the 

FDP Foundation. As you will note from my CV, I am an Associate 

Vice President for Research and Director of the Office of Sponsored 

Projects at the University of Texas at Austin. I appreciate your invitation to appear before you today to provide an overview of the 

FDP’s involvement in efforts to reduce the administrative burdens 

facing institutions and principal investigators that receive federal 

funding to conduct scientific research while not compromising proper stewardship. 

The FDP began in 1986 as the Florida Demonstration Project, 

and as of October 1 of this year, we will have grown to membership 

of over 155 research institutions and 10 federal agencies as members of Phase VI. The National Academy of Science, Government, 

University Research Roundtable serves as the neutral convenor of 

the FDP. 

The FDP acknowledges the need for federal government to ensure transparency, accountability and the efficient use of federal 

research funding, but the 26 percent cap on the reimbursement of 

administrative costs to universities has not kept pace with the 

growing regulatory burden. Since the imposition of the cap over 20 

years ago, university research has been subject to over 80 new or 

significantly revised regulatory requirements. This does not include 

the extremely burdensome requirements associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding support. 

Almost 20 years ago, the FDP first surveyed federally funded faculty researchers to evaluate the Florida Demonstration Project’s 

first demonstration of the expanded authorities which allowed 

grantees to perform some actions such as unilaterally extending 

final project periods for up to 12 months without prior federal 

agency approval. The results indicated that those expanded authorities save significant time, much of which could be redirected 

toward actively conducting research. 

In 2005 and in 2012, the FDP conducted faculty workload surveys of principal investigators of federally funded research to document the continuing impact of federal regulations and requirements on the research process. The 2012 survey reached almost 

twice as many investigators as the first survey, accumulating responses from almost 13,500 principal investigators with active research grants funded by the federal government. The results from 

both surveys were astonishingly similar. Researchers estimated 

that an average of 42 percent of their research time associated with 

federally funded projects is spent on meeting administrative requirements rather than conducting active research. These findings 
30 

mirror those of the NSB survey and suggest that whatever 

progress may have been made in reducing administrative burdens 

has been countered by the introduction of new requirements. 

The FDP’s payroll certification demonstration is an example of 

how the FDP works to provide less burdensome alternatives to 

meeting regulatory requirements. With payroll certification, the 

focus shifts to certification cycles that coincide with project funding 

periods so principal investigators spend much less time trying to 

translate the extrapolated percentages of effort that are inherent 

with the disconnect between effort reporting and accounting cycles 

and project funding periods. 

The Office of Management and Budget has published its Uniform 

Guidance, which combines the requirements of eight longstanding 

OMB circulars, including those impacting universities. The Council 

on Financial Assistance Reform must be commended for their laudable work at combining requirements for diverse grantees. However, one size fits all doesn’t fit anyone well. 

There are some positive changes in the Uniform Guidance as outlined in my written testimony. It remains unclear whether the Uniform Guidance will offer any demonstrable relief but it is clear that 

in some cases, certain requirements may exacerbate the administrative burdens that are already breaking the backs of universities 

and principal investigators. As an example, new procurement requirements more applicable to the government’s acquisition of commodities may result in thousands of transactions for research supplies being delayed on average by two or more weeks at most institutions. 

The FDP is perfectly positioned to provide a forum and test bed 

for exploring possibilities that will benefit our nation’s research viability while shaping a more efficient and effective research enterprise. 

I would like to close by expressing my sincere appreciation to the 

Committee and Congress for the continued support of academic research and your proposal to consider a holistic approach to reform. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wyatt Sedwick follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you. Dr. Sedwick. 

Now, Dr. Lee-Glauser, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GINA LEE-GLAUSER, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, 

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Thank you. Chairmen Broun and Bucshon, 

Ranking Members Maffei and Lipinski, and distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the invitation to testify at 

this joint Subcommittee hearing. It is both timely and important in 

light of the recently released reports on administrative burden. I 

will discuss the role and impact that federal research regulations 

have on Syracuse University and our principal investigators and 

comment on select recommendations of National Science Board’s 

administrative burdens report most relevant to SU. 

My remarks will focus on three topics: the application process, 

research subjects’ protections and progress reporting. 

Syracuse University is a member of the FDP and we have participated in its administrative burden surveys. With and through 

the FDP, we strive to put our limited resources to their best use 

in support of research. Time perhaps is the most precious resource 

of our faculty and staff and we all share in the responsibility to 

identify and implement processes that efficiently and effectively 

allow us to achieve our goals of supporting research without compromising our accountability to sponsors’ requirements, the safety 

and well-being of research participants or the welfare of our nation 

and the environment. 

The question we are all grappling with is, how best to achieve 

these ends. Complicating our collecting efforts is the construction 

in federal support for research. As a consequence, Syracuse University faculty members are submitting greater numbers of proposals 

in order to just get one application funded. The success rates of the 

research programs to which SU faculty apply including the NSF 

and NIH are now in the single digits. So, our faculty are spending 

considerable time rewriting applications for the next cycle. Disturbingly, there is likely no meaningful difference in quality or the potential impact between the funded applications and the next tier of 

non-funded applications. So in addition to the time lost for our researchers, the pace of innovation and of knowledge creation is delayed. 

This discouraging state of competitive funding also is having a 

chilling effect on our students. I am passionate about supporting 

students from the groups underrepresented in the academy and 

STEM disciplines as you do. I have directly observed the stifling effect that the current funding environment is having on these students’ career plans. Every day they see their advisors cope with the 

stress caused by an uncertain funding environment and the challenges in successfully achieving work-life balance and so most are 

choosing to pursue non-academic careers. This is a tragedy for research institutions that desperately need the diversity of thought 

and experience that these exceptionally talented individuals bring. 

The NSB has recommended a number of ways to streamline the 

proposal submission process. I support them and would suggest an-
50 

other, that research granting agencies be required to use the 

Grants.gov portal or system like FASTLANE. Public Law 106–107, 

the Federal Financial Management Assistance Act of 1999, created 

the foundation for Grants.gov. It expired in 2007, perhaps enabling 

the proliferation of new grant application systems. 

A second burdensome area for SU faculty pertains to adhering to 

regulations governing human and animal subjects. These regulations importantly protect the rights of research subjects and ensure 

that the risks and benefits are assessed and managed appropriately. Human subjects’ research at Syracuse is predominantly 

social or behavioral in nature and so is ordinarily of low risk. However, current federal regulations do not yet provide a clear framework to more efficiently oversee this lower-risk research. SU supports the Board’s recommendations to address this issue as well as 

similar changes to animal use procedures. 

Lastly, I know that submission of research progress reports is 

often a pain point for my faculty. We look forward to the efficiencies expected from the federal-wide implementation of the Research Performance Progress Report. Like all new tools, we know 

that there will be hiccups along the way, but the willingness of our 

federal research sponsors to work in collaboration with the FDP 

and the grantee community to further enhance these reporting 

tools will go a long way to reducing administrative burden on our 

faculty. 

I would like to close with a few remarks about the recently released OmniCircular. Syracuse, like other research universities, is 

currently evaluating the impact of the Circular’s new provisions on 

our current policies and procedures. We view this as an opportunity to identify and implement reengineered processes that will 

allow us to more efficiently and effectively use federal funds in support of research. We are also closely monitoring agency implementation of these regulations, with the hope that there will be very 

few deviations from the provisions. I ask this Committee’s help in 

avoiding the introduction or enactment of new legislation that 

would result in additional grant-related requirements on an agency 

and the grantees. 

I thank the Committee for taking a leadership role on this important topic and I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lee-Glauser follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Lee-Glauser. 

Now, Ms. Lerner, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ALLISON LERNER, 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance 

to discuss the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General’s perspective on the National Science Board report, Reducing 

Investigators’ Administrative Workload for Federally Funded Research, our audits of the Federal Demonstration Partnership pilot 

effort reporting systems and the comments our office provided the 

Office of Management and Budget during its creation of the Uniform Guidance on Administrative Requirements, cost principles 

and audit requirements for federal awards. Because both the NSB 

report and the Uniform Guidance address the need for changes to 

the effort reporting process, I will begin with that issue. 

Every year, billions of dollars in federal funds are spent for salary cost of individuals who work on federal grants. Labor effort reports are essential documents for ensuring accountability of grant 

funds as they represent the main support for salaries and wages 

charged under those awards. Over the years OIG auditors and investigators have repeatedly found that not all of these charges are 

appropriate, and some are even fraudulent. My office has had numerous investigations involving university grantees that have 

failed to adequately track time and effort. The cases that have been 

resolved to date have resulted in criminal convictions, civil settlements under the False Claims Act, and government-wide suspensions and debarments. In many cases, those outcomes would not 

have been possible without effort reports. 

As part of the Federal Demonstration Project, labor effort pilots 

of universities’ payroll distribution systems are underway at four 

universities. My office and the HHS Office of Inspector General are 

auditing those pilots, and we hope to complete our work by the end 

of the calendar year. 

The NSB report on administrative burden identified effort reporting as a top area of concern and recommended that OMB identify 

a way for the piloted approaches to be used by universities and accepted by OIGs. We appreciate the fact that the report recognized 

the importance of having the pilots audited, and I look forward to 

discussing the results of those audits when they are complete. 

The NSB report also made findings about administrative burden 

resulting from financial management, noting several audit folks’ 

concerns. It is unclear to me what the respondents meant when 

they indicated that auditors were exceeding requirements. Most 

grant-related audit work conducted by OIG would use OMB circulars or the Uniform Guidance as criteria and be conducted in accordance with audit standards, which should contribute to consistency in audit approaches. I would be happy to facilitate a dialog 

between the grantee and the IG communities to obtain greater insights on this issue. 

The report also urged universities to consider requiring receipts 

only for large purchases. While it is hard to see that requiring re-
57 

ceipts for purchases made using federal funds imposes a substantial burden, the lack of such receipts would have an immediate and 

detrimental impact on both an institution’s and an OIG’s ability to 

detect and prosecute fraudulent purchases. Requiring receipts only 

for large purchases would not provide protection for the not infrequent situations where individuals make many small fraudulent 

purchases with grant funds that eventually add up to a great deal 

of money. 

Finally, to put the impact of audits in perspective, it is important 

to recognize that most institutions are not audited by OIGs on a 

regular basis. NSF funds approximately 2,000 universities, colleges 

and institutions annually. Due to size and resource constraints, my 

office conducts fewer than 20 audits of such recipients each year. 

With respect to the Uniform Guidance, our office led an IG community working group that worked diligently to ensure that the 

right balance between reducing burden and maintaining accountability was struck. The OMB circulars include many tools essential 

for combating fraud, waste and abuse. Using these tools, OIGs 

have identified situations where recipients have misused grant dollars and been able to pursue criminal, civil and administrative actions to recover those funds. The feedback we provided to OMB 

highlighted the importance of maintaining and not diminishing or 

eliminating valuable tools such as effort reports, cost accounting 

standards and disclosure statements, certifications and Single Audits. 

Unlike contracts, the federal government has little insight into 

how grant funds are used by awardees. It is therefore essential 

that tools like IG audits and Single Audits, which are used to ensure accountability over federal funds, remain robust and provide 

sufficient oversight. 

While we recognize the need for a reasonable amount of flexibility to limit administrative burden, acceptance of public money 

brings with it a responsibility to uphold the public trust. NSF 

awardees must never forget that they are spending the public’s 

money and that they will be held accountable for using that money 

for its intended purpose. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lerner follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Lerner. I thank you all for 

your testimony, and I really appreciate the witnesses being here 

today. Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes per Member, and the Chair at this point will open the first round of questions, so the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Bienenstock and Dr. Sedwick, as you know, the National 

Science Board’s recent report notes that there has been an increase 

in administrative and compliance requirements associated with federally funded research. However, the Federal Demonstration Partnership’s recent survey noted the principal investigators spend 42 

percent of their time on associated administrative tasks, as Dr. 

Sedwick just told us, and that is the same as it was in 2005. I wonder about that, but it is an interesting piece of data. How can one 

claim an increase in administrative and compliance requirements 

when that 42 percent figure has remained static since 2005? Dr. 

Sedwick, why don’t we start with you? 

Ms. SEDWICK. Efforts of my colleagues and the FDP to limit— 

after we had the first survey, we have really stepped up our efforts 

to really focus on removing the administrative burdens on our faculty, and an example of this, when the ARRA reporting, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requirements for reporting 

came out, we worked very hard at minimizing the input that we 

had to get from our faculty, and we took that on our chins by developing systems, electronic systems, and these were not minimal endeavors. And so I think that we have worked very hard to minimize those increases in our faculty, and quite frankly, we were surprised that the number was exactly 42 percent but we were grateful that it had not increased. 

Chairman BROUN. This is unacceptable. Forty-two percent to me 

is a tremendous regulatory burden. 

Dr. Bienenstock, what are your comments or answer? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. I am afraid my age shows here. I was a working scientist in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and there was a 

marked change in the administrative load after A–21, the circular 

governing reimbursement of universities, was modified. That did 

away with much administrative support that we had as faculty. So 

when I say that it is increased, it is increased relative to the situation that I faced as a scientist back in the late 1980s and early 

1990s before that modification of A–21, and it is markedly different 

now. 

Chairman BROUN. For all witnesses, what do you all consider to 

be an acceptable amount of time for researchers to spend on associated administrative tasks? Let us start with Ms. Lerner and we 

will go down. 

Ms. LERNER. I don’t think that I can give you a strict percentage, 

not being a working scientist myself. Certainly, 42 percent does 

seem like a great amount of time but some of the activities are obviously highly important. Ensuring the protection of human subjects and informing funders and the public about the progress of research are obviously very important factors. 

Chairman BROUN. So the IG Office doesn’t have any comment 

about that? 

Ms. LERNER. I would defer to people more involved in that process than me. 
67 

Chairman BROUN. Dr. Lee-Glauser? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. As an engineer and practiced in both industry 

as well as NASA, now at the universities, I cannot just tell you percentages but I think when we went into this discipline, we wanted 

to make an impact and we wanted to make a contribution in innovating, and I think even ten percent would be too much, but at the 

same time, understanding what is required and due diligence, and 

I think there are amicable compromise. What is really exacerbating 

the situation is funding levels. When you have to constantly looking out for where your next funding to support all your postdocs 

and graduate students and undergraduates, I think that is a part 

of that exacerbation from our faculty members. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Dr. Sedwick? 

Ms. SEDWICK. Since I am representing the FDP, I don’t want to— 

this has not been discussed, a particular number, but I do want to 

tell you that we know that it is not zero. 

Chairman BROUN. What is your personal feeling of the percentage? 

Ms. SEDWICK. I think—— 

Chairman BROUN. What is a good compromise? 

Ms. SEDWICK. A reasonable goal would be to cut that half. I 

mean, if we could get down to 20 percent or so, I think that would 

be reasonable. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Dr. Bienenstock? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. You know, the problem is that we are dealing 

with regulations that serve a real function. I don’t have a number 

in mind. I think what we are going to have to do is just chip away 

and chip away at this. I was really pleased to hear Ms. Lerner propose that the audit community and the university communities get 

together. We are just going to have to chip away, and there is no 

magic bullet. We are just going to have to eat away at little things. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Bienenstock. 

My time is expired. Mr. Maffei, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I think this 

is a tremendously important hearing to have, so thank you again 

for that. 

I would like to ask Dr. Bienenstock, so we have been talking 

about trying to get this cut yet I fear that the FIRST Act may add 

to the administrative burden. There are several changes to the 

merit review process that I think would lead to NSF having to develop new policies for peer reviewers and PIs. Could you speak a 

little bit to the potential impact of some of these changes in this 

bill should it become law? Would that add to it? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. First of all, let me repeat my applauding the 

call for OSTP to form a committee to harmonize regulations. Harmonization is a key way to save researchers’ administrative time. 

For that reason, I was a little surprised by the treatment of research misconduct. When I was at OSTP, it took me three years 

to get all the agencies to agree on a common definition of research 

misconduct and on common procedures for dealing with an allegation of research misconduct. 

So it was surprising to find in the same Act a section that would 

completely deharmonize NSF from all the other agencies in the 
68 

treatment of allegations of research misconduct. It would be particularly troublesome in a situation in which a paper was funded 

by both the NSF and the NIH, for example, in which there was an 

allegation of research misconduct. Because NSF was a funder, the 

Inspector General would have a responsibility for dealing with the 

allegation. Because NIH was a funder, the university would have 

the responsibility or initial responsibility with dealing with it. I 

think that section is going to create real problems for the community. 

Let me say once more that as Stanford’s Vice Provost for Research, I had to deal with allegations of misconduct. Some of them 

were really subtle, and I was fortunate that I could immediately 

call upon faculty members who had expertise in the field because 

there was no way that I could figure out whether it was misconduct 

or two researchers trying to use research misconduct as a way of 

settling what should have been a scholarly argument. I think you 

are going to add to the burden of the IG and we are going to have 

chaos. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Dr. Bienenstock, that is extremely helpful, and I 

hope we can, you know—we passed it through Committee but I 

hope we can before it becomes law take a look at that to try to reduce as much as possible. 

I do want to get back to this point that was made by a couple 

of people. We are dealing with 42 percent. That is an estimate. 

Who really knows what the answer is, but way, way too high. I 

think we are all agreed on that. The issue, though, is that we can 

reduce the regulatory burden significantly. Let us assume we can. 

It is still—the number of times you apply for the same grant proposal is going to increase the percentage of time that scientists are 

spending on paperwork. So again, Dr. Lee-Glauser, I will ask you 

because you talk about the discouraging state of competitive funding, is this burden, even if we are able to reduce it somewhat by 

just reducing the paperwork requirements, but is this burden of 

constantly having to reapply for funds, is that turning off young 

people to the sciences? Are you seeing an effect on that? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. I think—— 

Chairman BROUN. Turn on your microphone, please. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Sorry. I think greater number of students are 

thinking twice about going into academics, and I think what I am 

really scared of is women and underrepresented minority students. 

They see their faculty hustling left and right and constantly working 24/7, and I hear from them, if I have to work like that, I would 

rather do something else, and yet their idea of coming into university and trying to get a Ph.D. was to teach and they ended up 

working elsewhere. I have a number of underrepresented, exceptional underrepresented minority students going into industries left 

and right as well as government labs. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Maffei. 

Now Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman Broun. 

First of all, let me make a comment about competitive funding. 

Obviously there needs to be competition, and when you are fund-
69 

ing, there is never going to be a time where 100 percent of people’s 

proposals are going to be accepted for funding. The question I have 

is where do we strike that balance to make sure that we are funding basic science research from the federal level at the appropriate 

level that is not impeding the ability of the scientific community to 

actually make progress, but also not fund projects that clearly, in 

my view, are not in the national interest or worthy of the taxpayer 

dollars. There is a very difficult balance there, and there is disagreement in Congress of where that balance is. I would think everyone would agree that it is probably a little—I would agree, I will 

give my opinion—that it is probably a little lower than it should 

be at this point and hasn’t kept up. The argument that always 

throwing more dollars into it without continuing to look at that 

balance is something we need to be careful about because as a 

steward of the taxpayer dollar myself, we want to make sure that 

things are funded at the appropriate level but not wasting money. 

The other thing is, anyone that has ever filled out FAFSA if you 

have a college student—anybody ever fill that out—knows that 

there is reporting and then there is reporting. So my question is 

to your point, Ms. Lerner and everyone else, there is valid reasons 

to have reporting when we are looking at getting federal dollars to 

fund projects. I think areas to look at are making sure the reporting is reporting the appropriate things that need to be reported, 

but leaving out stuff that really has no impact on the grant proposal, and I am hearing some of that is happening. Dr. 

Bienenstock, do you want to comment on that first? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. Well, we definitely proposed that progress reports, annual progress reports, be limited to the pertinent scientific 

information and outreach information that is needed to assess 

progress and that we strip away other aspects of it. Similarly, in 

proposal writing, we propose that initially the proposals be limited 

to those things needed to assess whether it is appropriate to fund 

the research and only when the decision has been made that the 

research should be funded do we request the other information. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Dr. Lee-Glauser, do you want to comment on that? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Totally in agreement. I think we need to use 

it just in time. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I think this is a potential area where my personal 

view of hearing your testimony that without limiting accountability 

that there is some significant progress that can potentially be made 

to improve the situation. Ms. Lerner, do you have any comments 

on that? 

Ms. LERNER. I would certainly agree that progress can be made. 

Mr. BUCSHON. The other question, how much administrative 

workload faced by universities is due to federal agency requirements versus institutional requirements? Dr. Lee-Glauser maybe 

can comment on that first. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Now you are putting me on the spot here, and 

I think both. So part of—in light of the OmniCircular, we are reviewing our institutional policies that we have and how do we meet 

the requirements but how do we look into reengineering rather 

than just comparing and how to meet the requirement to meet the 

OmniCircular. We want to have process improvement in mind so 

we are looking that way. Yes, we do have internal policies and pro-
70 

cedures that are very, very cognizant about and we wanted to 

streamline those as well. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Dr. Sedwick? 

Ms. SEDWICK. The focus at our universities is on mitigating risk 

but I think that in the same way that teaching to the test is maybe 

not always the best way to educate, administering to the audit, 

which is what happens often in these situations, is not the best 

way to reduce the administrative burden, and I think that we all 

live in fear of audit findings. And so it is very true that sometimes 

we maybe overextend what we could do and we are taking that 

same look at all of our institutions, but again, whenever you have 

change, we are all wondering what that is going to mean for future 

audits because it is an uncertain future. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. 

Now Dr. Lipinski. We have got a lot of doctors up here as well 

as down there. We have two physicians and a Ph.D. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I was going to ask the—— 

Chairman BROUN. Dr. Lipinski, you are recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I was going to ask the Chairman not to refer to me 

as doctor because the real doctors are over there, people actually 

heal people, and so I usually don’t like to use the doctor for my 

Ph.D., especially if someone is looking for emergency help. But I do 

appreciate whoever just turned the air conditioning on. I do appreciate that help. 

I saw, Dr. Bienenstock, you had your hand up there. You wanted—why don’t you continue? I think you had a comment on that 

last question. 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. I just wanted to say that universities do fear 

audits and they fear—and are often more conservative than federal 

government regulations would require, and that is why I think Ms. 

Lerner’s suggestion or pledge to seek a meeting between the universities and the audit communities is so important, and I think 

she deserves our praise for leading that effort. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, and I want to thank you for your comments on some of the provisions of the FIRST Act, and I know we 

had worked on the—you have been helpful with comments when 

we did the last NSF reauthorization bill, and I appreciate your 

work there and especially also the fact that I am a Stanford graduate and much appreciate it. 

I wanted to focus on the Omni Circular, which is scheduled to 

be implemented at the end of this year. I would like to get everyone’s thoughts briefly on the Omni Circular. What are the areas in 

which it helps reduce administrative burdens the most and does it 

address the leading concerns of the scientific community? What 

other issues remain unaddressed? So just sort of your—a few comments, a couple comments from each of you on the Omni Circular, 

where you think this helps and where more might be done. 

Ms. SEDWICK. I will be happy to address that. I have been very 

involved in looking at the Uniform Guidance and what the wins are 

for universities and what the areas are that we are most concerned 

about. The treatment of terminal pay as an indirect cost, which indirect costs are capped at our universities, will once again be another unfunded mandate. The manner in which we are going to 
71 

have to compete our procurement actions that are $3,000 and 

above is going to be a significant burden and change for our institutions, and these are two examples of the types of changes in the 

Uniform Guidance that are going to require revision of systems and 

processes and policies that are outside of the purview of research 

administration offices. So, you know, at each of our institutions, we 

are working across our campus to try to come up with implementation strategies for our own institutions, and as we understand it, 

we are not even going to see the implementation plans for the 

agencies besides the National Science Foundation’s perhaps until 

the date that the Uniform Guidance goes into effect. So it is rather 

hard for us to plan our own implementations when we don’t know 

how those might be different among agencies. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Bienenstock? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. There was one feature that I really like, and 

that is the ability to charge administrative time that is directly 

linked to the research to the contract itself. That was the way we 

did things prior to about 1991, and it meant that one could get administrative help locally. That is an extremely important change. 

Let me explain why we are so stressed out over effort reporting, 

and it is almost a question of integrity. That is suppose I have two 

grants and a new technique comes out. Well, I have got to study 

that technique as a PI and spend a fair bit of time deciding is it 

applicable to grant A, is it applicable to grant B. Now, suppose it 

isn’t applicable to either. On the one hand, it would have been negligent of me not to study it and see if it was applicable but then 

how do I charge that time to the two grants or suppose it is applicable, how do I charge the time that I spend teaching a graduate 

student about it. Is that teaching or is that research? So you put 

a scientist in a situation where he or she must affirm in detail how 

time is spent where one cannot do that with integrity. It is for that 

reason that we are so looking forward to the Inspector General’s report on the payroll certification with the hope that—we expect that 

there will be difficulties but we hope that the IGs and OMB and 

the university community will find a way of making that method 

meet our needs and meet the needs of the auditing community. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I see I am out of time. Yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski. By the way, my father-in-law was an agronomist, a tropical-soil specialist at Purdue 

University, and he would argue with me all the time that a Ph.D. 

was the original doctor. 

So anyway, let us see. The next Member is Mr. Johnson. Mr. 

Johnson, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

panel for being with us today. 

As I am sure many of you know, Ohio State University is a major 

academic institution within my home state. Its continual and significant contributions to the scientific community and to the State 

of Ohio must be able to continue free of ineffective and burdensome 

administrative regulations. OSU has about 600 active subawards 

with multiple agencies at any one time, the vast majority of which 

are with other academic institutions to which the federal government also makes direct awards. However, Ohio State, like many institutions of higher education, believes that it is required to subject 
72 

subawardees to much higher levels of scrutiny than when federal 

agencies monitor awardees that have been funded directly. Many 

believe that these additional requirements on universities to monitor each other are a total waste of effort and resources. 

So for each of you, how can we improve this process of subrecipient monitoring of grant subawards to alleviate this burdensome administrative process that is placed on these institutions? 

And I will let any of you answer that would like to. Ms. Sedwick— 

Dr. Sedwick. Sorry. 

Ms. SEDWICK. That is okay. My daughter is a physician and she 

calls me a faux doctor. 

Mr. JOHNSON. She calls you Mom, too, right? 

Ms. SEDWICK. Yes, she does. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There you go. 

Ms. SEDWICK. This is one of the areas of the Uniform Guidance 

that we as research administrators were disappointed because we 

felt like—that we could concentrate—if we got some relief in subrecipient monitoring of other institutions that are audited under 

the A–133 standards, that if we could spend less time on our subrecipient monitoring for them, we could concentrate our efforts and 

spend our resources really looking at those subawardees who do 

pose a greater risk, foreign subawardees, small startup companies 

or smaller institutions that maybe don’t have that kind of annual 

audit scrutiny. So that is one of the things that we would have 

really liked to have seen in the Uniform Guidance. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Anybody else care to respond on that one? 

Okay. Well, you know, for Ms. Lerner, similar to the grant proposal findings and recommendations included in the National 

Science Board’s recent report on reducing administrative burden, 

OSU has stated that many principal investigators have struggled 

with an increase in grant proposal resubmissions due to the continual development of more complex and detailed proposals, coupled with declining funding rates. So what steps has the NSF already taken to address these concerns? 

Ms. LERNER. I think that question might be better addressed to 

someone from the foundation proper. As the auditor or the independent body within the foundation, we don’t have a role in determining what projects are funded and what the process is, so I can’t 

speak directly to what the foundation has done there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. Yes. Go right ahead. 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. A section of the National Science Foundation 

is piloting a program of pre-proposals, and in that way you can 

weed out about 50 percent and even more of the proposals that are 

not likely to get funding. These pre-proposals are very short. So 

that reduces both the amount of time that the proposers spend on 

writing the proposals and also the amount of time that the reviewers spend. 

In response to that question I have to say that this Committee 

could do us a great deal of good if it would modify the authorization bill in a way—presently, the authorization of the America 

COMPETES Act requires that postdoc mentoring plans be included 

in the original proposal. We value very highly postdoc mentoring 

programs but we believe that that could be put off until we know 
73 

that a proposal is likely to be funded, and we need legislation altered in order to achieve that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thanks for being very clear on that. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Now, Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. 

In the NSB report, the FDP survey, and other recent reports, 

time and effort reporting is identified as a leading concern for researchers in terms of time spent on paperwork while being a poor 

metric for the conduct of science. Can you elaborate on the nature 

of the concerns and what efforts are underway to try to simplify 

or mitigate the burden of this requirement? And anyone who wants 

to answer. 

Ms. SEDWICK. Okay. Imagine if you will that you are a principal 

investigator in your office, your lab, and you are funded from different funding streams. You have your institutional duties and 

then you have projects that don’t have the same project period. And 

so in effort reporting once or twice a year we ask the faculty to look 

at those percentages that were individuals on their awards, their 

postdocs, graduate students related to your staff, how much time 

they spent. Did they actually spend the time that they were supposed to spend on those projects? Which that is all fine and good 

but it is very confusing because it doesn’t have a 1:1 correlation. 

Our payroll certification project has the certification for the specific project, so you are looking at that on an annualized basis and 

it is just much easier for the faculty to look at it on a project-byproject basis versus in the whole. 

Ms. KELLY. Anyone else? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. One of the things that—Art was pointing it 

out earlier, when you are doing the research, it really is very hard 

to compartmentalize whether it is a project A or project B or 

project C, especially very active faculty members may have multiple grants and contracts and it is not all from the federal government; it could be from the corporations as well. So it is very hard 

to—as Art pointed out, if you are finding something new, are we 

supposed to stop? As a researcher, curiosity is the best effort to go 

through in that process and then trying to find it out, where do I 

docket that time, whether it is with a graduate student or undergraduate or postdoc. So these are some of the inherent challenges 

in a research institution. 

Ms. LERNER. And as the auditor on the panel, I am not going to 

tell anyone that the current effort reporting system is perfect. It is 

not. And I think that things could be made better. But the thing 

to bear in mind is the amount of money that goes towards salaries 

each and every year. We looked at two years, fiscal years 2012 and 

2013. NSF put about $11 billion into research funding; $4 billion 

of that approximately went to salaries. That is about 36 percent of 

the research funding in a year. So there needs to be some way of 

ensuring that that money is spent appropriately. 

Ms. KELLY. So you are saying it is vital for accountability—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Ms. KELLY. —and you have examples of how things—— 
74 

Ms. LERNER. Yes, absolutely. 

Ms. KELLY. —grant funds have been misused. Is there a middle 

ground? 

Ms. LERNER. I think, you know, that that is the thing for us to 

discuss right now, and that is why our community has stepped up 

and offered to come in and audit these pilots because if there is a 

better way of doing things, we want to embrace that. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. 

And, Mr. Collins, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses. I am new to this Committee and 

I found this very interesting. By the way, I have participated in 

some CDC grants so I know something about this, although not 

necessarily as you are talking about, the professors. 

Ms. Lerner, I am hearing a willingness of the IG to work with 

the universities, call it continuous improvement, to have that conversation? 

Ms. LERNER. Certainly we have to maintain auditor independence, but we should obviously be involved in a dialogue about accountability and about how to improve things. So I think there is 

a way of being involved in that conversation while maintaining 

independence. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. I mean calling that balance, the IG is open 

to—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yeah. 

Mr. COLLINS. —suggestions coming in, streamlining ways to 

make sure your auditors know taxpayer dollars are being—— 

Ms. LERNER. Exactly. 

Mr. COLLINS. —protected and lessening the burden to the extent 

but you need to make sure taxpayer dollars are being properly 

spent. 

Ms. LERNER. We do. And what I hate to see happen sometimes 

is conversations get very far along without the audit community 

being included and then people think solutions have been reached 

and we have to come in and rain on the parade. So it is better to 

be involved in the conversation early on. 

Mr. COLLINS. Now, what I am hearing, the 26 percent overhead 

rate—— 

Ms. LERNER. Twenty-six percent? 

Mr. COLLINS. Did I hear that from Dr. Sedwick that—— 

Ms. LERNER. That was her recommendation as a kind of middle 

ground. 

Ms. SEDWICK. The 26 percent is a cap that was imposed back in 

the 1990s on the ability for universities to be reimbursed for their 

administrative costs, and almost all research universities that belong to the FDP far exceed that cap. 

Mr. COLLINS. So does that just go in as a plug number when they 

are doing it and then you just say times 1.26 or—— 

Ms. SEDWICK. The 26 percent is the administrative portion of our 

facilities and administrative costs and it is capped and then we negotiate our negotiated rate, which is then applied. 
75 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. So that is really not audited so much. That 

is just an automatic slipped-in number? Yeah, okay. 

But if it was—what you’re, Dr. Sedwick, suggesting perhaps that 

didn’t cover everything. For every dollar that we increase, that 

would be, to refer to Dr. Lee-Glauser, a dollar then not spent somewhere else. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. That is right. 

Mr. COLLINS. You can’t have it both ways. It is called balance. 

I look at it that it is probably not a bad balance. 

Ms. SEDWICK. Well, in my administrative—I mean my written 

testimony, I talk about the fact that the administrative burdens on 

our faculty are exacerbated by the fact that we are trying to, in our 

offices, absorb as much of the administrative burden as we can but 

every time we have to take on a new regulation, then those are dollars that we have to spend on the administrative requirements 

versus just helping our faculty with their administrative tasks. 

Mr. COLLINS. No. No, understood. Dr. Lee-Glauser, you have 

many principal investigators. I have to assume they don’t all have 

the same hit rate when they are applying. They don’t have the 

same amount of time. Have you gone to really try to deep-dive why 

is this investigator hitting 40 percent and this one three percent 

and why does—in other words, are you looking for efficiencies and 

suggestions because any improvements you can make you are helping yourself. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. So it differs significantly by the agency to 

agencies. So if you are—if some of our faculty are targeting defense 

agency ONR, OSR, or ARO, the importance of having a relationship 

with the program director is that important. And I think it is very 

aligned with almost like a proposal type of action. Many of our programs are done with white papers—— 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. —which is one to five pages and you have a 

go, no-go. Once you have ‘‘go,’’ success rate is very high. So the faculty members who are doing more defense-related projects, their 

success rate is much higher typically than faculty members who 

are seeking funding from the National Science Foundation, as well 

as the National Institutes of Health. 

Mr. COLLINS. So you do—I mean it would make sense to try to 

help your investigators do better. The better their hit rate, the 

less—and, you know—— 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Exactly. 

Mr. COLLINS. It is common sense but—— 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. We would like to have our—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Help yourself again, yeah. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Yes. We would like to have our faculty writing 

one proposal and getting that one funded—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. —if it is at all possible. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. I think we all would. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. We are going to switch out here again 

real quickly. 

Chairman BROUN. We are having a little discussion here about 

doing a second round. We have a lot of questions. I know other 

Members do. I have also. We also have votes on the Floor, and we 
76 

have conflicting idea about when we are going to have votes. I 

think we are going to go ahead and start a second round of questioning if you all don’t mind. Also, we are going to, when we get 

through with this, present any other questions to you all for the 

record so we call them QFRs. So, if you all don’t mind, be anticipating questions from the Members of both Subcommittees for further questioning. 

So Ms. Lerner, in the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity 

and Efficiency’s response to the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Uniform Guidance or Omni-Circular, it states that it is important 

to strike the appropriate balance between reducing burden and 

maintaining proper accountability. Can you help illustrate what an 

appropriate balance looks like? For example, what do Inspectors 

General need to see at a minimum in order to be able to ensure 

accountability and transparency with federal grants without impinging upon a researcher’s extremely valuable time to do their research? 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you. Both my written and my spoken testimony mention several tools that are extremely important to IGs. 

We have talked a lot about effort reporting. Another area that we 

haven’t spent as much time to focus on that I think does and has 

served to fight back some of the burden on researchers, is Single 

Audits. Single Audits were put in place back in the ’80s and a Single Audit is a high level audit looking at internal controls and financial management within a recipient. 

Prior to the creation of the Single Audit, an entity funded by 

multiple federal agencies, all of whom would have a need to audit, 

and they can all go in at the same time. If you receive funding from 

five different agencies, you could have five different sets of auditors 

walking in simultaneously or after each other looking at the same 

things. So what the Single Audit did was say we are going to do 

this once, you know, at this very high level and spare some burden 

there. And so maintaining the integrity of the Single Audit process 

is very important to IGs and to institutions and other folks who 

rely on the information there, so maintaining a robust Single Audit 

process, having strong cost principles that clearly delineate what 

are allowable costs so that there is some clarity both for auditors 

and for folks who are incurring cost. All of those are important 

things to IGs. 

Chairman BROUN. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Lerner. 

Dr. Bienenstock, the Board has suggested that agencies and institutions consider requiring receipts and justifications only for 

larger purchases. Conversely, the NSF OIG makes a compelling 

case requiring investigators to obtain and retain receipts for all 

purchases. Can you please elaborate on your justifications for the 

Board’s suggestion, including at what amount you would require 

receipts? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. As I understand it, federal regulations allow 

one to not submit a receipt for expenditures under $75. And yet 

many institutions are required—and federal regulations allow, for 

instance, a researcher who is traveling to use a per diem reimbursement rather than providing receipts for each little meal and 

things of that sort. Yet many States require receipts for every little 

transaction and don’t allow the use of the per diem rules that so 
77 

eases things with the federal government. So we were looking primarily at the States there that don’t allow per diem. That is my 

memory in that recommendation. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. What level, though, of receipts would 

you require? Just a number—— 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. I think the $75 is—— 

Chairman BROUN. Is appropriate? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. Yes. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Ms. Lerner, can you please provide us 

with the IG community’s perspective on this issue? 

Ms. LERNER. I think I was fairly clear in my written testimony 

speaking for myself and I think probably reflecting the views of my 

community, we rely on receipts and just because an expense is 

small doesn’t mean that there can’t be many small fraudulent expenses. 

Chairman BROUN. Um-hum. 

Ms. LERNER. So ensuring that if a threshold was set at higher 

than 75 percent, we would have some challenges. As I noted in my 

written remarks, we had one very creative person who made 3,800 

small purchases that added up to over $300,000 of fraudulent purchases. So, we do need to have receipts to help us make cases like 

that. 

Chairman BROUN. That is a lot of pizza and hamburgers. 

Ms. LERNER. It was. And she really liked to tailgate for a university other than the university that she worked at. That did not go 

over well. 

Chairman BROUN. Very good. My time is expired. 

Mr. Maffei, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Sedwick, I was struck by the fact that both the 2005 and 

2012 FDP faculty workload surveys found that principal investigators reported in both surveys spending an average of less than 60 

percent of their time on active research, so the scientists spending 

less than 60 percent of their time on science. Can you comment on 

what policies if any—because I know you said there were things 

put in place to try to reduce the workload but then there were 

things that added to it—was it mostly the Recovery Act—of why we 

didn’t get improvements in the administrative workload between 

those two times? 

Ms. SEDWICK. The results were quite often in the human—the research compliance areas for those researchers that utilized animals 

or those researchers that used human subjects—participants. 

Those were very high burdens for them. And so that is what we 

looked at is not only was it prevalent across all researchers but 

what were the big pressure points for researchers in general. And 

so if you had human subject participants or if you had animal use 

and care to deal with, those were very high, and a lot of that is 

regulatory-driven. And then just the financial management, the effort reporting remains to be high across all sectors, because that 

touches all faculty. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thanks. I think that is very helpful. 

Somebody made the comparison between applying for the research grants and, you know, getting through that administrative 

burden and sort of teaching to the test. And that part of the chal-
78 

lenge is that researchers are designing their applications more to 

sort of teach to the way that is done. And I don’t know, Ms. Lerner, 

whether you were able to comment on that at all but I am curious 

as to whether you think that is true and how can that be reduced? 

Ms. LERNER. I think the expression was that they were trying to 

teach to the audit with the idea of avoiding any possibility of a negative audit finding. And I know we are scary people and I say that 

in jest, but I recognize that an audit to question costs and tries to 

take money back from an institution is a frightening thing to have 

to deal with. What I would say is, really it is not the audit. We 

audit to criteria and the criteria come out of first, previously, the 

OMB circulars and now the Uniform Guidance. And so if we can 

have a better understanding and set policies and procedures that 

are harmonized with the criteria that the federal government has, 

then there shouldn’t be a problem with the audit down the road. 

And I think what I have heard some of my colleagues here referring to is that sometimes standards are raised beyond what the 

federal standards require in an excess of caution. And if that can 

be avoided, that might be an area of improvement. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Dr. Sedwick, you seem to—— 

Ms. SEDWICK. Well, I am the one that said we administer to the 

audit, and by that I mean—keep in mind that the Inspectors General for the federal agencies are not the only auditors that are auditing us. 

Ms. SEDWICK. Ms. Lerner has alluded to our A–133 Single Audits 

and those are conducted by our state—run by our state audit offices for those of us that are state institutions. And so it is not just 

Inspectors General that we are, you know, concerned about. 

I will give you an example. In the Uniform Guidance there is 

much more burdensome subrecipient monitoring requirements, and 

we already feel that at our institution and I think some of my colleagues who we have—how you make subawards to feel like that 

we are pretty risk-averse. Well, our state auditors have already 

told us they want to talk to us about, you know, increasing what 

we do at our state institutions, and that is really concerning for me 

and I think that that is what we are all thinking is coming out of 

the Uniform Guidance is we don’t know where not just the Inspectors General but our state auditors are going to take it 

Mr. MAFFEI. That is really helpful. 

I am curious, and Dr. Lee-Glauser, I will ask if you have a 

thought on this, but I am curious as to whether you think that 

these requirements put any bias in terms of the kinds of universities, the sort of home universities or colleges that—for instance, 

you mentioned state. Are state institutions having to deal with 

more of this and therefore biased against? Do the sort of the huge 

traditional names, are they helped? Or the smaller colleges, if you 

are from there, they don’t have the resources to support scientists 

as much. Do you detect any of that? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. I think we—Syracuse University is a private 

institution. We are not a state institution but we have the same 

burden. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Right. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. We receive funding from the State as well as 

the federal and different agencies, so we have the same burden. 
79 

Mr. MAFFEI. I know my time is up but, Ms. Lerner, do you ever 

detect any sort of—are you concerned at all about different—you 

know, the nature of the institution? 

Ms. LERNER. You know, over the years the IG community has 

found problems at—you know, at every size institution that you 

can imagine from the biggest names to the smallest. So there is no 

guarantee that size prevents problems. What I would say is in larger research institutions like the University of Texas, my alma 

mater and a lovely place, you do have places—people like Dr. 

Sedwick who are able to provide support and ensure an environment where you are more likely to have controls. That may be difficult to replicate at smaller institutions and certainly when you 

have small businesses that are receiving funding. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you. I thank the Chairman for his obliging 

me. I think this is all very, very valuable. 

Chairman BROUN. Certainly. Gladly. No problem. You know I 

have always tried to give lots of leeway. 

Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to go 

a little different direction. I think Mr.—Dr. Bienenstock, excuse 

me, mentioned an intriguing thought that sometimes misconduct 

allegations are done because there is an academic argument for 

competitive purposes and we all know that the academic environment is really hypercompetitive. I want to see what people’s insight 

is what happens when those things happen within your own university—this may go to the university folks. What are the repercussions of that when that is found to be the case where it is not— 

it is an academic argument in the competitive environment people 

have made accusations. 

And then, Ms. Lerner, maybe you can address what implications 

that may have on the future ability of the person making the accusation that is found to be false on their further ability to ever get 

federal funding again? Because in my mind if they do that, I would 

not want to give them another taxpayer dollar ever. Or—we have 

discussed this at the Committee—or have a time frame where you 

would maybe—you know, there would be some forgiveness there. 

Do you want to follow up on that, Dr. Bienenstock? I mean how 

significant do we think that a lot of this stuff we are spending time 

on within the university is actually related to academic competition 

and not related to actual fraudulent behavior by researchers? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. Let me say that approximately half of the 

cases that I had to deal with as Vice Provost were of that nature. 

Okay. 

On the other hand, I have to say that it was pretty subtle. That 

is you know the processes. First, you determine is the allegation 

one that should be dealt with under the definition of falsification, 

fabrication, or plagiarism? Then you do an inquiry. And in both of 

those cases the inquiry said we better do an investigation. So it is 

subtle. And then in the end when we got the senior faculty together 

to really look at it carefully, it was decided there isn’t research misconduct here. It really is an argument that should be settled in the 

literature. 

Now—— 
80 

Mr. BUCSHON. So is there a reporting requirement? Say an institution finds that within their own institutional investigation. Is 

there a requirement to inform the federal government of who made 

the allegation in the first place and what the outcome was? 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. No. I believe in circumstances like this we 

don’t report. And remember, the person who made the allegation 

had a real reason for doing it and we wouldn’t—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Well, maybe they didn’t. 

Dr. BIENENSTOCK. —go beyond the inquiry stage if we didn’t 

think there was enough justification to go into the investigation. So 

it is not as if you really want to stop these things because in some 

cases there is real misconduct, and you are supposed by the rules 

to keep these things confidential unless there is a real finding of 

research misconduct. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. Ms. Lerner, you have a comment on that? 

Ms. LERNER. I would just say if NSF funding is involved, we are 

supposed to be informed even at the inquiry stage because the initial inquiry and investigation is conducted by the institution, and 

if there is a determination that no investigation is warranted, we 

are informed of that. What the institution is doing is looking at the 

interest of the institution and we look at research misconduct and 

allegations from the perspective of the funding agency. And sometimes we will look at the inquiry and/or investigation and decide 

that additional work is necessary and we do go on and do that. It 

is not often. Usually, we can rely on the determinations that are 

made by the institutions. But in instances—and we have had some 

prominent ones where we don’t think that sufficient work has been 

done, we go in and do more and then we make recommendations 

to the director intended to protect the federal funds. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I want to give both the doctors from the universities—there was some surprise about your initial part of your 

statement. So, Dr. Lee-Glauser, first can you comment on that? 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Yes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And then with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, 

Dr. Sedwick. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. So it is my understanding that during the inquiry stage within the institution we do not have to report to NSF. 

When it goes into the investigation—so we are very careful—— 

Ms. SEDWICK. Yeah, that is—— 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. —as to how we are awarding what we are 

doing. 

Ms. SEDWICK. I agree. 

Dr. LEE-GLAUSER. Yes. 

Ms. SEDWICK. That is—we are required to report at the—when 

we start the investigation stage and then the results of our investigation. 

Ms. LERNER. And—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Your mike is not on, Dr.—Ms. Lerner. 

Ms. LERNER. What is that? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Your mike is not on. 

Ms. LERNER. But sometimes allegations come to us and we send 

them to the institution for inquiry, so that is what I am speaking 

of. In those situations we are already aware. In other instances we 

are not aware of them until they get to the inquiry stage. 
81 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. Because this issue actually seems very important to me because, like I said, there is a discussion on when 

you fraudulently use taxpayer dollars or you accuse someone of 

fraudulently using taxpayer dollars and they weren’t, what the repercussions of that are. 

And so thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. 

As a practicing physician, I have seen the burden that is placed 

upon medical practitioners by the federal government and it has 

markedly driven up the cost of the practice of medicine. This drives 

up the cost of insurance, it drives up the cost for all of us, society 

as a whole, because of the heavy burden of the federal government 

that comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. So 

this regulatory burden on all scientists, whether it is a researcher 

in a university or whether it is a private researcher or whether it 

is even medical providers that are working. The cost in time, energy, which of course are extremely valuable, as well as the financial cost are huge. And I appreciate you all being here today to help 

elucidate some of the issues that you all face. 

By the way, for those of you all that are not from the South, you 

all is singular for all you all, which is the plural for us, or you all 

could be plural itself so it is singular and plural. So, but greatly 

appreciate you all being here today. And, it is great testimony from 

each of you. I appreciate—certainly all of you all have made some 

personal sacrifice in your valuable time to come here and give us 

your testimony, and personally, I greatly appreciate it. 

And then others have even made some other types of sacrifices, 

driving a long way from Syracuse, New York, down here, and then, 

Ms. Lerner, I am sorry for your father’s health problems and I 

greatly appreciate your personal sacrifice to come. I know that 

there was some question whether you could attend or not because 

of that and I will keep you and your family and your dad in my 

prayers. 

But all of the Committee Members may have—or some of us may 

have further questions for each of you all, and I would appreciate 

a very rapid response to that. Members are reminded that the 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments or 

for those written questions from Members, and then if you all 

would please get your responses back as expeditiously as possible 

so that we can go ahead and close this record. 

And if you have any suggestions of how we can get this burden 

off of our scientific community so that we can do science instead 

of fulfill the regulatory burden that the federal government has 

placed upon you all, and also give Ms. Lerner and her compatriots 

in IG offices across this country the resources that they need to do 

their job. We all have to be held responsible and accountable and 

so that is what Ms. Lerner and her office is all about. So, if you 

all could let us know. Ms. Lerner, if you could help us, too, I would 

appreciate that. 

So I thank all of you all for your valuable testimony. I thank 

Members for your great questions and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(83) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
84 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Arthur Bienenstock 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Responses by Dr. Susan Wyatt Sedwick 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 

Responses by Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

Responses by The Honorable Allison Lerner 
120 
121 
122 

Æ